Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 11

Describing "involved"
Ncmvocalist, you reverted my edit, saying it went beyond clarification and constituted a substantive change to the policy. Can you say here what that change was? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 10:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Policy currently accounts for the "exceptions" without explicitly encouraging administrators to invoke all of those exceptions. Your change wipes out the acknowledgement of other exceptions, and also wipes out what is specifically described as "best practice"; instead, your change says something similar to "if it's not straightforward, it cannot be done by you, period". That's not clarifying what policy says; it is changing it. In other words, the Community does not say "overturn it" just because a case is not "straightforward" (or to use your preferred wording, because the case is "contentious" or "arguable"); it looks into all of the circumstances before coming to a decision one way or another. Policy, as it is presently written is effective already and need not be so sweeping or exhaustive; the possibility is open for those circumstances where the Community has said "probably better to pass it to someone else, but it's not enough of a problem for me not to endorse in this case". Incidentally, incidents like between Collect and 2/0 (which I presume has played some part in your proposal - seeing you participated heavily in the relevant ANI not that long ago) are always going to arise, even if policies change substantially. That is, simply changing policy is not going to replace the ongoing need to remind administrators, where appropriate, about what best practice is or what they should be doing (if exceptions do not apply to the incidents they are parties to). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand your points. Perhaps it would help if we take it paragraph by paragraph. Could you say which sentence(s) you think contain a change of substance (if any) in the first paragraph?

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but, like, all of them? "Cases" become "articles or topic areas", much broader. "In general" has been dropped, suggesting there are no exceptions except those explicitly listed. A strict "Anything arguable should be left to entirely uninvolved administrators." drops out of the sky, and makes the whole thing useless (everything is "arguable"). The already overbroad "topic" gets further broadened into "broad topic area" (twice) (which, BTW, also is not an operational discussion definition - we have editors claiming that all climate articles are in the broad area of global warming, or even that Glenn Beck is part of that topic area). It's also nearly twice as long as before, which is bad per se. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Far too big a change. We need to prevent abuse but we also need to avoid hobbling administrators. Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate a response from Ncmvocalist. I think this is a situation where the edit is being misinterpreted.


 * Stephan:
 * the policy already said "topics," so the change didn't broaden anything;
 * "in general" can be restored, but later edits I made did make clear that we were talking "in general";
 * find a better word than "arguable" if you don't like it; "contentious" would do;
 * I don't know what an operational discussion is.


 * SlimVirgin talk| contribs 12:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * An "operational discussion" is a thinko - fixed above. An "operational definition" is one that is reasonably clear and unambiguous, so that most people agree on what it means in most cases. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, I'm not sure what I can be expected to usefully add to what I already said at 16:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC) and in my revert to make my points any more clearer; I've re-read what I said and think it addresses almost all of the issues with your proposed wording - not just on this paragraph either (perhaps you'd be willing to make another attempt to comprehend what I am saying). That is, I don't think it is your edit that is being misinterpreted; I'd respectfully suggest that you may be misunderstanding this part of the policy as it currently stands. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't understand your points, Ncm, and that's why I asked you to clarify. There can't be only one way to express what you said.


 * Let's try this a different way. The first sentence of the current section is "In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved." I don't know what "cases" means. I'd therefore like to clarify it: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in articles, topics, or disputes in which they have been involved." Is there any objection to that change? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 12:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I read "cases" a lot more restrictive than that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The policy does already make clear in one of the next sentences that it means topics: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." What do you see "cases" as meaning, if not articles, topics and disputes? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 13:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I see changes I think are substantial. Some of them I like. I think the first sentence is overall an improvement, if "in general" is retained, although I'm iffy on the word "topics" (I'll go into that more in a minute). I do not like "Anything arguable should be left to entirely uninvolved administrators" I think we have enough wikilawyering as it is. It is also somewhat redundant to (and yet more strongly worded than) the following "As a rule of thumb, if someone might reasonably see you as involved, leave the decision to someone else." (I prefer the second sentence, but believe it should say the community, not someone. There is always going to be someone with a somewhat reasonable outlook who is nevertheless out of step with the community. It's not within the consensus model to play to the fringes, unless we plan to define "involved" very broadly.) With regards to those "who have edited either the article or the broad topic area in question," this kind of language is likely to hobble generalists who attempt to comply and also to open up more issues with wikilawyering. Is an admin who has written an article on a British politician too involved to address a WP:3RR listing on the article of a different British politician? Are politicians from Thailand okay, or is he involved with all political bios? Is the topic of British politics altogether off the table for him? The current language in the policy, where it refers to "disputes on topics" works better for me, as it limits topic exclusions to those topics in which an admin has been involved in a dispute. I presume that this is prompted by the recent ANI conversation here. (I haven't read it all, but I have a vague notion what's going on.) There are always going to be questionable cases, but I think we have to be careful not to go overboard in imposing general restrictions in an effort to anticipate them. Analagously, while some contributors fake sources, we wouldn't want to limit WP:V only to online sources to circumvent those few. It might be better to consider an approach whereby, once there is consensus that an admin is "involved" in a certain area, future actions in that area should be left to other admins. In any event, this is a heavily discussed section of policy, and changes to it will probably need to proceed slowly. We had quite an in-depth conversation about it just a few months ago, an RfC the month before that and a proposal to replace it with a much simpler ban on repeat blocking shortly before. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, MRG, that's helpful input. I'd like to remove "cases" from the first sentence, because it's so vague. The proposal is to replace it with: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in articles, topics, or disputes in which they have been involved." Can you think of wording that would avoid the problem you identify with "topics"? What I'm trying to avoid is someone who edits a lot in an area, but doesn't edit article X within that area, and therefore feels it's okay to use the tools on it contentiously. I'm not talking about straightforward tool use (responding to requests on RfPP or reverting vandalism), but anything that could be seen as a problematic judgment call. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 13:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure we can do it in one sentence. Writing briefly is always a challenge for me. :) But we might be able to do something like this: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in articles in which they have been involved, nor should they use their tools in topics in which they've engaged in dispute, even in different articles." Of course, the problem here is that the vague "cases" (which I agree needs clarification) also includes editors with whom they've had involvement, and that's been lost. :/ Maybe the problem is trying to frontload the section. In the old text, involvement is more fully described almost immediately after. If we bring the definition up and tweak it a bit, it may suffice to clarify "cases" and (with minor change) to indicate that it does not matter whether the topic argument is on article Foo or article Related to foo.


 * Of course, the word "location" (which I've added) may itself be seen to be too vague, but I like it because it not only applies to articles, but to project space, talk pages and even potentially off-Wikipedia. Would this approach help? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there needs to be a limit on how much is loaded into each sentence otherwise the point is lost. That is why I think that despite the apparent concern that 'cases' is vague, the current text works well (and reads smoothly). I'm not even sure what is so vague here; if an administrator is going to argue that their involvement isn't in a case per se, that's wikilawyering - because the spirit of the policy is clearly communicated in the section by using that broad term (in my opinion). Administrators are expected to have good judgement to understand if and when the principle from this part of policy applies, in a given set of circumstances or when responding to an incident. Moonriddengirl has now proposed 'location'. The current wording of policy already does extend to project space and talk pages (and to a limited extent, to off wiki locations). I think there are too many practical limitations if we explicitly include the (proposed) 'locations' in policy - including, for example, off wiki disputes that are unrelated to the wiki. It's not that the evidence is inadmissible; in fact, policy needs to be broad enough to address many situations (and at the same, narrow in describing some examples), but we need to be careful not to go overboard in addressing a once in a blue moon situation.


 * Absent those two proposed changes, both wordings are identical in what they are trying to convey - except that, in my opinion, the original version is far clearer due to the way in which it is written (and structured). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it is clearer to explain why prior to explaining what. :) And off wiki disputes that are "unrelated" clearly would not create involvement, but if an administrator has expressed strong opinions on a topic elsewhere, there may be reason to suspect the kind of strong feelings that lead to COI. That said, can you explain where the current wording of policy refers to any extent to off wiki locations? I'm afraid I don't see it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that there is a tension (or even a concern) that a handful of admins are doing things without thinking about why something is in place, I'd say it forces everyone to read the why as well (rather than just reading the what and then skipping the why). On the issue of COI in off-wiki locations, it's not an issue of the strong opinions being found elsewhere, but of being clear as to whether the person operating the on-wiki account is the same person who is expressing those views. In that sense, I don't think simply adding the word 'location' clarifies the extent at all; it just highlights a point that is easily gamed. I think the word 'nature' encompasses a situation where a person does seem to have a COI - after it is known that it is the same person who is expressing strong views elsewhere. I think it comes to judgement and circumstances. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your wording works well in my view, MRG. The writing is good, the meaning is clearer, and there's better flow. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Break 1
Ncmvocalist, could you say exactly what you feel is wrong (if anything) with this: "In general, editors should not act as administrators when they are involved, where involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with editors, and disputes on topic areas, regardless of the nature, age, location, or outcome of the dispute." Just that sentence; nothing else at the moment. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The sentence is too long to the point that what is being conveyed is lost. Even if the sentence is separated into 2 sentences, failing to mention the *why* towards the beginning of the paragraph will make it an afterthought that is easily overlooked, and promotes the trend that some users easily become obsessed with - only looking at the letter of policy. The *why* is what communicates the spirit of policy and it needs to be in the back of the person's mind before reading the *what*. That *why* is found in the next sentence of Moonriddengirl's version, but it is notably at the end of the paragraph. What I feel wrong with this proposed version is not found in the present version of policy. That's partially why sentences can't be isolated when discussing policy. Each point that is being conveyed is important, but so is the ordering of those points. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, what is the "why" that you would like to see placed first? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The sentence "This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen to have, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about." In the original version, a reader is forced to read this line before they come to know what "involvement is generally construed as...." Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, and that's not a good thing, is it? That way, the section would start with "this is because," without saying what we're talking about. MRG's version begins by explaining the issue, and then explaining why it's an issue. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * To the contrary - the way it is written in the original is a good thing because we want readers to read *why* something is in place before they are informed about the details of the rule. It's one of the few ways in which policy can address the handful of admins who are not reading far enough to understand the spirit of policy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this seems to be going in the wrong direction, so I can't agree. The original version gives an imprecise definition of involvement and then explains (incorrectly, in my opinion) how it is usually interpreted by the community. The new version makes the supposed interpretation by the community the official definition. This turns a dubious statement of fact into a legal definition that is not only two wide, but additionally open to wikilawyering.

Here is the problem (in both versions): "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." If this became normative language, then, for example, MRG would be unable to block anyone for copyright violations because of course she has had disputes with editors about copyright. ("Copyright, shmopyright. I can copy as much as I want." – "No, you can't. [Blocks]") Well, maybe copyright is not a "topic" in this case, but how about "pseudoscience", "American politics", "national conflicts", "philosophy", "modern literature", etc.? We would in fact be left with Carcharoth's suggestion on ANI, which in practice would mean that any admin who understands what is going on in a conflict is automatically disqualified from taking admin action and will look for a proxy admin. This would create networks of admins doing blocks for each other.

This is of course an unreasonably broad interpretation, but it is what the plain words say. It is normal to interpret normative language conservatively so that it does make sense, but in this case the normative language comes with explicit warnings ("construed [...] by the community", "very broadly") that the rule may be unreasonably broad. As a result, the unreasonable interpretation comes into effect. Even though exactly the same sentence is already present, it is not a problem because it evidently functions as a warning to admins to be careful, rather than a licence for admin targets to complain to Arbcom or the community. Hans Adler 17:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Policies have to be descriptive as well as prescriptive, so this page seeks to describe admin best practice. The problem with your response is that you're trying to make it entirely prescriptive. If the community does as a matter of fact interpret "involved" broadly, the policy must reflect that, especially if best practice among admins is to heed that interpretation.


 * I don't agree with your definition of "topic" to extend to taking admin action over copyright violations. That's not what people mean when they use that word. What is your objection otherwise, i.e. if "topic" were defined in terms of a range of articles within the same field? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have already conceded that copyright violations are not a "topic" and have listed some topics that I am afraid would come up and that are obviously way too broad. And it's not me who is trying to make the policy prescriptive. The last proposal, which has the (probably unintended) effect of promoting a one-sided description of our practice in certain particularly contentious cases to a prescriptive definition was not mine.
 * Global warming is a particularly contentious environment. I do not agree with generally regarding it as a topic, such that after you have once argued against someone who wanted to rewrite an article so as to make it clear that virtually all climate scientists are kooks who are conspiring to draw money out of universities by operating a huge global warming scam that will damage the global economy and make the imminent next ice age come even sooner, an admin is no longer able to block Scibaby socks. Or indeed after arguing with one Scibaby sock an admin is disqualified from blocking others. But given the extreme level of contentiousness, regarding global warming as one huge topic at least makes some sense.
 * However, a fixation on hard and contentious cases leads to rules that can create severe problems when editors start applying them to the much more common normal cases in which they make no sense. In case you missed it, under MRG's proposal you would no longer be able to move templates related to animal rights, whether it's contentious or not. You would also not be able to delete images related to Bradley Manning.
 * Under your proposal, Scott McDonald would certainly not be allowed to do any potentially contentious admin action on any BLP. This would establish BLPs as a topic area, and under the precedent we would soon have no admin left who could act on any BLP. Hans Adler 19:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By the "last proposal", I presume that you mean mine, since it's the last one on the board. I must admit that this response is a bit surprising to me. The only substantive alterations that I can see in my "what might work" column (besides rearranging what's already there) is the addition of the word "location" and the alteration of "topics" to "topic areas." How does that prevent moving uncontentious templates related to animal rights, if the current policy does not? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You have moved the description of how the community generally construes involvement to the front. That changes its character from a warning to admins that they must be aware that involvement is sometimes interpreted in an unreasonably broad way to a definition. This is a problem because the description is at most accurate for the most contentious situations, but certainly not for ordinary situations. E.g. if I were an admin I would be completely safe to block a new editor who edits Nasal irrigation disruptively, even though I was once engaged in a long fight to remove the distortions added by a salesperson who was posing as a medical expert. With the original text it is clear that I could simply ignore the stuff about "construed very broadly [...] regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." But move this to the first sentence, and it will be read as the official definition of involvement, so that it can be used as ammunition against unwanted admins. That's a recipe for disaster, because the few, extremely valuable, admins who share your hands-on approach but work in topic areas would be very vulnerable to such attacks. Hans Adler 00:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got to make sure I'm understanding you: "That changes its character from a warning to admins that they must be aware that involvement is sometimes interpreted in an unreasonably broad way to a definition." Are you saying that you believe that the consensus of the community as currently included in policy is not intended as a definition of involvement, but instead as an implicit warning to admins that the community is unreasonable? And that by keeping it as the third sentence in the section, it thus has no meaning and can be ignored? If that's what you're saying, then, yes, this policy needs clarification. One of us is absolutely wrong about it. :( As I see it, it's already the definition. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Hans is saying that (correct me if I'm wrong Hans). He is saying that currently, that sentence is giving (details about the *what*) guidance - about how involvement has been construed by the Community - generally very broadly, and including x and y. Certainly, that is a part of a definition (seeing the Community ultimately decides on these things), but it would not be practical to assume it is a complete definition. In fact, I don't think it would be a good use of time trying to come up with a complete preset definition of involvement (nor do I think it is possible for this part of policy) because policy needs to be broad enough to address situations according to the facts and circumstances of those situations, and the judgement expected of admins at the time of those situations. The wiki faces a wide variety of circumstances in relation to this issue and whether someone is involved, uninvolved or partially involved will depend on the facts of each case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By shifting the description of the community's interpretation to the front you are giving it more weight. This is a problem because the description is faulty. It only applies to contentious cases. So long as it's clear that it functions only as a description that's not a big problem. But if you give it more weight it will become normative and will be applied in cases that are not contentious at all.
 * It appears that some editors (including at least one arb) actually want to make the involvement rules as broad as that. I don't know if you are one of them or if you merely didn't see the consequences of moving the statement. I want to make sure that this huge change, with which I do not agree, is not put into the policy before a clear consensus for it has been established. This change has a high cost in terms of admin time, at a time when RfA is exceptionally slow. It also creates a systemic bias against admins who have a formal education in the topic area in which they work. So far no benefits have been demonstrated. Hans Adler 07:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I read it, it clearly refers to past conflicts and disputes (as it incorporates both words). This creates no bias against those who have formal education in a topic area unless their work is controversial, in which case they may well be seen to have a conflict by the community. Like Ncmvocalist, I consider that "the Community ultimately decides on these things". If the description is faulty because it does not reflect the community's will, then policy is already wrong. If the language in the policy is the community's will, then it does not matter whether it is the first sentence or the third; it is already in policy. It is not at all clear to me that any admin is free, as you put it, to "simply ignore the stuff about 'construed very broadly [...] regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.'" --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, I'm moving my response to you down here. :) You make a good point about the difference between giving examples and a limited definition; in that light, I see that even removing the comma makes a difference. I do still agree with Slim, though, that "cases" is a vague word, and I am still myself inclined to believe that the "what" needs to go above the "why", even more now that I am aware that some people are perceiving this policy very differently than I do. I think it's not "a warning to admins that they must be aware that involvement is sometimes interpreted in an unreasonably broad way" so much as it is some guidance for what consensus defines to be involvement, which we need to respect, and if it's interpreted as having no weight, we need to fix that...or confirm that this is not what the community believes. What about something like this? I've removed the vague "cases" and restored the comma I had dropped. I've separated it back out into two sentences. I've retained "topic areas" and "location". I've removed the into words "This is because" as I believe they are superfluous. Does this seem to be a move in the right direction? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's much better this way, and I am glad that we now seem to agree that the discussion is about an actual change in the written policy. But I still object to moving the faulty description of community practice before the rationale. The rationale serves as a limitation of the involvement rule that can prevent unreasonable interpretations. Let's consider the following very common case: Admin A blocks editor B, B complains loudly but without any success in numerous places, and two years later A blocks B again.
 * The change would make it easier for B to claim that A was involved. Maybe A can claim to have acted "in a purely administrative capacity", but it's usually a bad sign when we need to invoke exceptions. (We may have forgotten an important exception.) What is worse, it's trivial for B to manufacture a small interpersonal or editing conflict with A that will make it impossible to invoke the exception.
 * Complaints about admin involvement are currently not usually successful. Let's not try to change that. Hans Adler 13:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Break 2

 * Oh, and here is a concrete example of something that could easily begin to fall under involvement if we are not very careful. Last week SlimVirgin protected Talk:Carl Hewitt for BLP reasons. I haven't looked at the details, but I am sure that was perfectly appropriate. However, someone might easily get the idea that this section is a dispute about the topic which now makes her involved. A judge in that situation would be involved. An arbitrator maybe. An admin should never be considered involved for so little reason. Hans Adler 13:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh dear! As I just found out, this particular frivolous accusation against SlimVirgin has already been made, but it got the reaction that it appears to deserve. Hans Adler 17:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've also just been accused of being involved because I'm trying to reverse the deletion of the user talk pages of . My involvement amounts only to having voted to delete in an AfD of an article she created.


 * I agree with you about this, Hans, and I'm not trying to hobble admins; I've seen spurious claims of involvement too often to want to make it worse. But I'm certain there is wording that can be found to clarified the issue, so we don't have the spurious claims, but where we do stop admins using the tools in the interests of their own political views. For example, I edit a lot in animal rights articles, and very rarely use the tools on any of them, even if I've never edited them, to avoid the appearance of COI. I use them where it's straightforward (serious BLP violation, vandalism etc), but not for anything where I might be seen to be furthering a POV I've expressed. That's the principle I'd like to make clearer in the policy. Do you disagree with that? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't agree to that; the actual change in the written policy above was unintentional. :) What I am proposing is a clarification of the existing policy. You describe this as "faulty", but you have yet to demonstrate that it does not reflect community consensus. That an admin is not involved if he has acted purely in an administratorial capacity is explicitly part of the rule, with the explanation that "one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary." (It could be even more explicit by the addition of the word "editorial" to "conflicts" and "disputes".) I don't agree with your implicit assumption that complaints about admin involvement should not be successful; it seems to me that a case-by-case appropriate outcome is desirable. If most complaints are frivolous under the current policy, they would remain frivolous under my proposed rewording. But if admins are using their tools where they are involved, that needs to be addressed. If frivolous complaints are lodged, it does not eliminate the underlying need to avoid administrators unfairly using their tools to press their own points of view.--Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, of course some complaints about admins have merit, some don't, and some are less clear. Currently we have only very few frivolous complaints about admin involvement. Most of those we do have come from the totally clueless new editors who usually get only a very small number of responses because nobody takes them seriously.
 * As soon as this policy appears to give much weaker conditions for involvement, the situation is likely to change. We had an editor who insisted that articles must not, ever, be about a word or have a lead that can be misunderstood to that effect – because "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". We have many editors, including at least one high-profile admin, who believe that when we all know a claim in a reliable source to be false (e.g. because it's a statement about Wikipedia which our logs prove to be false), then we must state it anyway, because Wikipedia is about "verifiability, not truth". Countless times, Arbcom's badly written principle "removal of sourced statements is disruptive" has been applied to statements that are not even remotely relevant to the article in question. If we are not careful, an aspiring new editor will look at the next frivolous claim of admin involvement on ANI and decide that the admin was involved by the letter of this policy, even though he will agree that this doesn't really make sense. And this will only be the start. (Or maybe we are lucky and all these won't happen, but why risk it? It makes no sense to make the text more precise when the precise definition is not accurate.)
 * We should have an environment in which such dogmatism is not socially acceptable and we can write policies with the confidence that they will only be interpreted reasonably and where they make sense. But that's not what Wikipedia is like. I am watching as the interpretation of policies is getting more and more fundamentalist. (I have seen a huge RfC in which half the participants !voted for an editor who was abusing a footnote from a source about a completely unrelated topic in order to let the lead of an article say something that was patently absurd. This was possible because we have relatively objective rules for evaluating the quality of a reliable source (which was excellent), while we treat questions such as relevance of a source to a statement – and whether the source is actually qualified to say what it does and means to say it with its full authority – in an ad hoc way.)
 * As far as precise definitions go, I find Roger Davies' initial definition at the top of much more convincing. It appears to me that he thought things through carefully before making his proposal, and that he looked at the definition from both sides: That it matches all cases which it is supposed to match, and that it does not match those which it is not supposed to match. Hans Adler 17:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hans, Roger's suggestion had much more potential for constraining admins than anything proposed in this section. It included: "An administrator will generally be considered involved if they have recently or significantly ... interacted personally with the editor, or with other editors with whom that editor is in dispute." For any active editor/admin, that would rule out taking admin action against huge numbers of editors, even if there had been zero editorial involvement. I'm puzzled as to why you'd support that if it's spurious claims of involvement you want to discourage. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a valid point. Something like this would probably be a formally valid complaint under this proposal, which it obviously should not be. This just proves that getting the formulation right is quite tricky. Hans Adler 00:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, might I ask why there would be a problem with a blanket policy of tool use banned in involved articles/editors, and for admins to use the appropriate incident boards like any other editor? A few exceptions, of course, that are block-on-sight like NLT and 3RR. I'm not trying to moot admins that work hard on articles, but I also don't see how it would be remotely "crippling" to the duties of an Admin to seek out a non-involved whenever possible. "In theory" I'd love something like this to keep everything as close to neutrality as possible, so I'm looking for honest answers on the pitfalls. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 04:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Why should I have to find another admin to deal with obvious vandalism on pages I've edited, if there is no content dispute? Why should I have to drag up another admin to take care of a page move in an article I've started and no one else has edited or cared about?  My rule of thumb is:  Don't use the tools to give you the leg up in any sort of dispute with another editor.  If there is no conflict, and if you are not risking one by acting, then it's OK if there are no other disqualifying factors.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Given Wikipedia's ongoing (and recent) criticism for being male-dominated, shouldn't the logo referring to MALE admins be removed?
Though made in jest, the logo for "Men wanted" referring to admins seems a bit male-dominated. Given that Wikipedia participants and editors are overwhelmingly male, perhaps this should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.13.98 (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, "male" is crossed out, but it is a bit silly. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Something equally lighthearted to replace it would be good, but since the anon was annoyed/confused by it, perhaps that's not the right choice. Steven Walling  01:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

just wondering
Do admins need to be always logged on when ever they edit? Do they ever get lazy about logging in and use an IP address to edit? 173.183.79.81 (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure some edit while logged out, but you can't use the admin tools, or any tools for that matter, without being logged in. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The administrator logo
The administrator logo with the mop to resemble a janitor gives a bad impression, like there are only admins who can clean up in vandalism and such things. The mop should be replaced by a gavel, to give a more clarified impression. JustEase (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Those of us who have done admin work are likely to agree that a janitor is the more suitable comparison. Yes, admins sometimes make decisions that are the topic of prolonged debate and drama, but the vast majority of administrative actions are very mundane and pass without comment. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Administrators are far more like janitors than arbitrators, both in the original spirit of the userright and in (usual) daily execution. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I get the argument that the mop is a potentially misleading symbol. But I can live with that since it's not too far off. The gavel on the other hand is misleading in a more damaging way because it suggests authority and even ultimate authority. That's not what adminship is about and, even more importantly, that's not how adminship should be perceived. Pichpich (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Plus we'd all have to get our tattoos re-done... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't joke about that: the crazy admin-tattoo rumours are one of the reasons why so few apply at RfA. Pichpich (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Before 2006 they would brand you. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. And all but one of those guys died at Bitter Creek. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as well; I always thought "tattoo artist" was an odd addition to the bureaucrat userright. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I think it's a fantastic logo. A gavel implies administrators are important people who decide the outcome of arguments. A mop implies it's not a glorious job, and that you're mostly cleaning up messes. That seems like the truth, and even if it isn't all the time, the more we make the image of sysops more like janitors and less like judges, the better off Wikipedia will be. Steven Walling  05:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's logical but looks bad. That's the truth of all this.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Need help
I'm afraid from the accompanying project page that I don't know how to go about reporting an abusive admin.

There's a discussion going on at Talk:Dustbin Baby (film) and on the talk pages of myself and of User:J Milburn. During this discussion, he has been verbally abusive to the point that at least one other editor has noted this, as well as blasphemous. He has made unwarranted accusations, and now, despite another editor trying to mediate, is insisting on keeping two footnotes that lead to DVD sales sites for the film in question, even though a journalistic RS cite is available.

Now, however, in the heat of the dispute, he is threatening to block me for having "a compromised account." His attacks on me for disagreeing with him on an article he WP:OWNs has reached a point where he threatening to abuse his admin powers for a personal disagreement. I've been on Wikipedia for over 5 1/2 years, I've had disputes as has anyone, but I'm considered a good Wikipedian by my peers at WikiProject Comics. Never have I been threatened by an admin over his edits. I need help. Please. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like the situation might be over. As it seems that the administrator might be cooling off a bit. That's mainly what he needs. I will still keep it in watch though. Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully that is correct and the situation has calmed. In case it isn't and for future reference, incivility can be reported for (non-binding) discussion at WP:WQA. More serious matters can be reported at WP:ANI. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for taking the time and for making the efforts that you have. User:J Milburn came on my talk page and spoke with me very graciously and, I must say, showing honor and integrity. We each apologized for our part in the escalation, and I believe we'll be collegial colleagues. JH, you in particular have been a wonderfully calm and calming presence throughout; I owe you my gratitude. Now, onward. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Time limits?
--Surturz (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is there a maximum duration that an admin can serve for?
 * 2) If yes, is there a minimum time between stints as an admin?


 * No. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there should be. It would stop admin burnout, and reduce factionalism. --Surturz (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're not the only one who feels that way; I would imagine that it has been proposed before, but haven't looked. I know that a proposal to require admins to reconfirm has not yet been successful. See Perennial proposals. To change policy, of course, you should begin by confirming widespread consensus. VPP and an RfC would probably be a good idea. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive 70 --Surturz (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin - definition
I think that a while ago this was finally defined by ArbCom, but currently WP:UNINVOLVED redirects here, and there is no clear definition of this concept in the current version. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Better definition here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the most recent archive Piotrus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not surprised it was discussed. But talk page is not policy; does it mean there was no consensus and we don't have a definition of an (un)involved admin? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion meant that a definition will be strictly wikilawyered in the same way that the proposed definition of involved would have been - policy was OK, left as is to prevent that (buro) from happening, which meant that the AC definition you were referring to was not adopted at the conclusion of the RfC. What constitutes involvement and uninvolvement necessarily varies in each set of circumstances, and an arbitrary rule does not carry across what the Community intended. Generally, admins are expected to have the judgement be able to make the distinction in any given incident. Of course, where a dispute arises over whether someone is involved a not in an incident, admins should take the appropriate steps to resolve those concerns. Still, as policy states, "it is best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved that they pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards", particularly in the event that the Community does not resolve the dispute (usually due to division within the Community). If disputes continue, ArbCom will enforce that part of policy by directing said admins to stay away from those particular cases (which usually should bring such involvement disputes to a resolution). Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

History and role
I have split out the "history of adminship" to a lower point in the policy, as it isn't central to the policy and this is a common presentation of "historic interest" sections on some other pages. I kept the part that defined or explained adminship, and added a paragraph from WP:HARASS covering admin's responsibilities, and retitled it to "role of administrators" which is probably a useful section title anyway.

Diff

FT2 (Talk 12:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've reverted this; I don't agree that this is an improvement. The definition of admins is already provided in the first line of this page much more effectively (read: broadly) while this history is very relevant; the "feeling" Jimbo spoke of at the time clearly continues to this day despite his statement, and despite how much more routine it was in the past. It's important that users understand that there is a difference in the present, and simply putting it off to the end is no different to removing it altogether (because it won't be read by most users). I don't see any justification for quoting harassment policy here at such length given the audience of this page is practically one of the three groups of users: users interested in becoming admins after seeing what an admin can do, admins who are double checking what conduct is expected of them, or (and for the most part) users who are unhappy with something an admin has done or said. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: Also regrouped the sections to bring "like with like". Hopefully flows much better now. List of the few textual changes:
 * 1) Added  (slightly redundant) to "care and judgment"
 * 2) Removed  - section is now much more visible as an "expectation" so no need.
 * 3) Added "appropriate" to.
 * 4) Formatted the technical note on rights removal not showing up in local logs, for visibility.
 * 5) Added "ANI" to "possible processes" as this is one of the most common routes for genuine admin concerns or if dialog fails (see #6).
 * 6) Removed  from "grievances". Not needed - ANI is now listed and RFC/U is easily seen directly below.
 * 7) Changed ending of  to "...without a request for comment or other prior steps". No need to give the process full title, and applies to all cases not just RFC/U.

There is probably still some copyediting to do, for example redundancy under "misuse of tools" and duplication of "grievances" with "disputes". But I think it reads a lot easier now.

Compare TOC before and after.

FT2 (Talk 16:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal at Village Pump to Suspend Sysop rigthts for inactive Admins
See Village pump (proposals) (permalink) The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Quarterly update
It would be helpful if, sometime in the first week of July, someone would add the changes to this page from April 1 to July 1 to WP:Update/1/Enforcement policy changes, 2011, which is transcluded at WP:Update. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Help moving a page!
I'm trying make corrections to the grammar of the title of an article (Digitech Whammy to DigiTech Whammy). It makes no sense that the "t" is emphasized (capitalized) for titles of other DigiTech related articles (DigiTech, DigiTech JamMan), but is completely ignored for the Whammy. Also, before I changed my old username (whathitz) to my current one (Therewillbehotcake), why is it that Wikipedia capitalized the first letter of the latter when I never gave an indication to do so? When I first registered under my former username, this never happened. Explain? therewillbehotcake (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Two RfCs for allowing bureaucrats to remove the admin bit
Two related Requests for Comment are now open to discuss giving bureaucrats the ability to remove administrator user permissions under specific circumstances. Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag proposes enabling the technical ability for bureaucrats to do this. Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy proposes the specific policy conditions under which they would be allowed to use that ability. Please visit both RfCs to give your input. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I agree with these policy changes. Jewishprincess (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor copy edit
Just made a minor copy edit. Welcome to change it back if you like. Jewishprincess (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just noted the serial reverts. I understand the issues.  Thus, I am very carefully not making any edits that change the sense of the page in any way.  Just trying to tighten the syntax a little,  while explaining every change.   Also,  I note above that anyone is welcome to revert my changes.  Do we need to discuss every little element of proper English on the talk page ?  No wonder the page demonstrates such poor usage.  Needs a serious edit.  Likely,  English is a second language for many editors. Jewishprincess (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment on edits, not editors, please.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the misunderstanding. Just offering to correct the edits of anyone who is not a native English speaker. Fail to see how this is commenting on editors. Jewishprincess (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent notification of admins desysopped for inactivity
Looking through the list of admins who were recently desysopped for inactivity, I notice that there seems to be some inconsistency in whether they were notified of their loss of adminship. Some received a talk page message telling them so (e.g. User talk:-- April), while others did not (e.g. User talk:Interiot). I also wonder about email notifications for those who had email addresses listed. I think that every user should be notified not just before, but after the procedural desysopping occurs, and this notification should be the same for all users who are desysopped under this policy. If a user is notified that they have lost their admin rights, they may be spurred to return. Who knows?--Danaman5 (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Who gives a fuck? They're gone. Malleus Fatuorum 21:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I just started delivering the messages yesterday and haven't finished yet because I haven't been online. Just starting up again now. See discussion at WP:BN. --RL0919 (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe they are all delivered now, but if you discover any missing, please let me know, or you can simply add the notification yourself using Template:Inactive admin. --RL0919 (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing this. – xeno talk 12:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

On returning tools to admins returning from inactivity
We should be asking users who have been inactive for over a year what they want the tools for? In what way do they intend contributing to the project with them? This returning inactive user:Ocee has requested and been given the tools back at the crats noticeboard see here. As per current community guidelines/policy after over a year of not editing at all he was told by the crats that he did not need a reason to get them back and did not need to answer any questions. I don't think the community really supports such a position, do they? His edit history would suggest that he really doesn't seem to need them for any benefit of the project and he didn't say he was returning to contributing to the project. Perhaps we can keep a list of the inactive admins caught in this that request and get resoppin and glean some feedback from the results as to what they do with the mop after they are given it back. Is there a list somewhere of re-sopped admins in relation to time/date, reason? To me giving and continuing to grant administrative privileges to inactive users is like allowing ex functionaries to access mail archives as admins are able to see deleted content, some of which has privacy issues and other such issues. Fastily and Malleus are correct to ask "Why do you need them now?" - Clearly as they have been inactive for so long the reason that they requested them no longer applies, for example, at RFA - so why do you want the tools? I would like to help with the admin backlogs..Off2riorob (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It should not be a new RFA, but I definitely agree the new process needs some tightening up. The bureaucrat should be satisfied that the former admin is coming back to actually use admin rights. Or maybe they should be required to edit without admin rights for a month to prove themselves? Either way something definitely needs changing, because while the truly inactive won't return, the others will come back and it defeats the point a little bit. AD 11:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We could be presented with an inactive admin returning every year to request their tools back. Off2riorob (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and it makes the tools look like a trophy. As I said something needs to be done, along the lines I've suggested. AD 11:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The crats are not there to consider this at all, the community needs to tall them what to do clearly. At present they have been told to give the tools back to any admin that didn't leave under a cloud without any questions and without the returning user needing to give any reason for wanting them back at all, no matter how long they have been inactive for.Off2riorob (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you want from this, but you sound very defensive despite us being on the same side here. The community can tell them to consider the request, or wait to see the admin has been editing actively, or whatever's agreed on. AD 11:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not defensive..... just laying out the issue. I like your idea to wait a couple of months to assess their contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is already covered at WP:RESYSOP. If an inactive admin returns and wants the tools restored, and there's no compelling reason why this would be a bad idea, the tools should be restored.  We don't need to put any other roadblocks into the process. --Elonka 17:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To be blunt, there are plenty of currently active admins who are working out of the playbook from 3-4 years ago and don't seem interested in keeping abreast of the very policies they are enforcing. If I recall correctly this new procedure was done more in the interest of avoiding the hacking of inactive admin accounts more than concern about them being out of touch with current practice. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Failure to follow guideline ... where should it be addressed?
Query -- where is the best place to raise a repeated failure by an admin to follow the directive of this guidelines that "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we just cease fire please? For whatever reason, it seems that we just can't work well together, and I have no interest in making all of Wikipedia a battleground over our personal squabbles like this. --causa sui (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

WHERE IS "invisible hand" mentioned?
In the Book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, I read everywhere on the Internet that economists, authors, and writers reference to Adam Smith's book about his observations about the economy and the "invisible hand", but WHERE IN THE BOOK IS THIS MENTIONED? all the economists, authors, and writers reference to the "invisible hand" mentioned by Adam Smith, BUT WHERE IS IT IN THE BOOK, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations?

ANY HELP FROM ANYONE?

HISMERCYTOME (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the a page for discussing Wikipedia administrators. The reference desk can probably answer this question for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI it looks like it was answered at the Help Desk.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman Family Tree simple
Ottoman Familytree simple This User 82.168.170.61 Permanently deletes Selim II, and replaces it with Shehzade Mustafa Please check it... I added Selim back in the list. 90.134.40.142 (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a page for discussing Wikipedia administrative policies, not content. Your best course of action is to mention your concerns on the relevant articles talk page, following the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Test case for WP:ADMINACCT
I have been encouraged to post here by User:Elen of the Roads. I had a user page deleted that contained a list of links to admin actions that I thought questionable. Supposedly "shit lists" are violations of WP:UP, but I think there is an exemption under WP:ADMINACCT - the legitimacy of admins is increased if they are seen to be held to account for their actions. I would appreciate you thoughtful comments - for or against - at Deletion_review --Surturz (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggested change to WP:ADMINACCT wording

 * Village_pump_(policy)
 * I have removed the proposal here as it duplicates the above where there is already a reply. It is best if discussion occur at one location, with links to that location where necessary. Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Add a hatnote about Sysop / Sysadmin?
You will see this come up at the bottom of a user pop-up if you use them; e.g. roll over the user's signature at User talk:Brion VIBBER. I have created Wikipedia:Sysadmin as a soft redirect; perhaps a hatnote at the top of this page (to which Wikipedia:Sysop redirects) should also be added, owing to the similarity of the titles?  It Is Me Here   t / c 18:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * N.B.: The sysadmin group's name appears in italics in the navigation pop-up because it's a global user group. —  Kudu ~I/O~ 14:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, fair enough, but are there any objections to adding the hatnote? If no-one responds negatively to this within a week, I'll just go ahead and add it.  It Is Me Here   t / c 12:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Does this serve the same purpose? – xeno talk 13:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Suits me :)  It Is Me Here   t / c 15:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)